Conciseness

Mostly efficient with concrete paths and commands, but several passages could be trimmed: the redundancy arithmetic in Context ('~300 bytes × 18 agents = ~5.4KB of redundant context'), the filler sentence 'This is Squad coordination, not an ordinary Copilot workflow', and a dense, hard-to-parse Reviewer Protocol paragraph. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened', below the 'minor instances' bar of level 4.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance dominates: an exact decision-inbox path ('.squad/decisions/inbox/{your-name}-{brief-slug}.md'), a copy-paste message format template, a fallback command ('git rev-parse --show-toplevel'), and a concrete checklist of what a rejection must contain. Minor gaps (Cross-Agent Communication is reduced to 'say so in your response' with no message convention) keep it at 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than fully copy-paste-ready level 5.

Workflow Clarity

The simple patterns (worktree awareness, decision recording) are unambiguous single actions, but the Reviewer Protocol presents an implicitly-sequenced multi-step process (reject with evidence → coordinator assigns revision owner → independent correction → focused rereview → gate approval) inside one dense paragraph with no checkpoints or failure handling, fitting 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'. Not level 4 because a reader must untangle the protocol's order and role boundaries from run-on prose.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines, has no need for external reference files (none exist in the bundle), and is cleanly organized into Context, four labeled ### pattern sections, and an Anti-Patterns section. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, this earns the top anchor: a clear overview with well-organized sections and easy navigation.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Standard collaboration patterns for all squad agents') and three concrete topic areas ('worktree awareness, decisions, cross-agent communication'), but describes subject matter rather than actions the skill performs. It matches the anchor 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' — more than the purely generic level 2, but it never states what the skill actually does with these topics.

Completeness

There is a clear 'what' (standard collaboration patterns for squad agents covering three named areas) but no 'when' clause — the description never says when Claude should load this skill, capping completeness at 3 per the guidelines. Not level 4 because no explicit trigger guidance exists at all; not level 2 because the 'what' is specific and concrete.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'worktree awareness', 'decisions', and 'cross-agent communication' are relevant to the team-workflow domain, but common natural variations are missing (e.g., 'team coordination', 'squad workflow', 'agent handoff', 'record a decision'). This matches the anchor 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Squad agents' and 'worktree awareness' give it a distinct multi-agent niche, but 'decisions' and 'cross-agent communication' are generic terms that overlap with any coordination or communication skill, matching 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'. Not level 4 because the phrasing describes its audience rather than unique triggers, leaving moderate overlap risk with other teamwork/coordination skills.